04/12/2012 08:30 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB159 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 2012
8:34 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 159(RES)
"An Act establishing the Susitna State Forest; urging the
Governor to acquire forest land that is currently in the Tongass
National Forest; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 159(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 159
SHORT TITLE: SUSITNA STATE FOREST/TONGASS FOREST
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MENARD
01/17/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (S) RES, FIN
03/12/12 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/12/12 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/12 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/14/12 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/12 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/12 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/12 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/16/12 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/19/12 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/19/12 (S) Moved CSSB 159(RES) Out of Committee
03/19/12 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/21/12 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 3NR NEW TITLE
03/21/12 (S) DP: WAGONER, PASKVAN, MCGUIRE
03/21/12 (S) NR: FRENCH, WIELECHOWSKI, STEVENS
04/02/12 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/02/12 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/12 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/03/12 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/03/12 (S) Moved CSSB 159(RES) Out of Committee
04/03/12 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/04/12 (S) FIN RPT CS (RES) 6DP 1NR
04/04/12 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, STEDMAN, THOMAS, EGAN,
MCGUIRE, ELLIS
04/04/12 (S) NR: OLSON
04/04/12 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/04/12 (S) VERSION: CSSB 159(RES)
04/05/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/12 (H) CRA, RES
04/10/12 (H) CRA AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
04/10/12 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/12 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/12/12 (H) CRA AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR LINDA MENARD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of SB 159.
MICHAEL ROVITO, Staff
Senator Linda Menard
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of SB 159, answered
questions on behalf of the sponsor, Senator Menard.
CHRIS MAISCH, Director/State Forester
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of SB 159, answered
questions.
BUCK LINDEKUGAL
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to table CSSB 159(RES)
or delete Section 2 from it.
EDDIE GRASSER, Lobbyist
Safari Club International (SCI) -Alaska
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 159.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:34:18 AM
CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:34
a.m. Representatives Austerman, Cissna, Gardner, and Munoz were
present at the call to order. Representatives Foster, Dick, and
Saddler arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 159-SUSITNA STATE FOREST/TONGASS FOREST
8:34:35 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the only order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 159(RES), "An Act establishing the
Susitna State Forest; urging the Governor to acquire forest land
that is currently in the Tongass National Forest; and providing
for an effective date."
8:34:44 AM
SENATOR LINDA MENARD, Alaska State Legislature, reminded the
committee that SB 159 establishes the Susitna State Forest on
763,200 acres of state land in the Mat-Su Borough. The land
will be managed for a sustainable yield of timber and the forest
will be open to multiple uses including hunting, trapping,
mining, fishing, mushing, and etcetera. She further reminded
the committee of the last hearing of SB 159 when there was
testimony in support of SB 159 from the Alaska Professional
Hunters Association, foresters, and mill owners. Furthermore,
Chris Maisch, the director of the Division of Forestry, provided
a presentation and answered the committee's questions. Mr.
Maisch, she noted, has also sent the committee a memo addressing
the questions regarding access within the proposed forest.
Senator Menard, echoing her testimony at the previous hearing,
told the committee that this proposed state forest has been in
the works for many years. The Susitna State Forest will be the
fourth state forest in Alaska and residents and mills in the
Mat-Su Valley will benefit as have other areas with a state
forest.
8:36:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled testimony from the previous
hearing regarding the in-holdings, and inquired as to how the
three years for future planning will work.
SENATOR MENARD said that she has much faith and trust in the
Division of Forestry, which intends to vet the matter
appropriately. She opined that it's good to have the in-
holdings, particularly since there is no risk of subdivision or
tradeoffs. Furthermore, the area will remain a state forest in
perpetuity. She reminded the committee that the proposed
Susitna State Forest would comprise less than 5 percent of the 9
million acres of state land in the Mat-Su Borough. The proposed
Susitna State Forest proposes blocks to incorporate the in-
holdings in order to allow the owners of the in-holdings to
maintain the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. The
owners of the in-holdings will also benefit from better roads
and access as the Division of Forestry will have the resources
to do so.
8:39:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER highlighted the concern raised in an
email from Mr. McKimmons (ph) from Craig, Alaska, regarding the
lack of a local public process addressing the addition of the
Tongass National Forest to this legislation.
SENATOR MENARD explained that the language referring to the
Tongass National Forest was intent language inserted by the
Senate Finance Committee to encourage the governor to urge that
the Tongass National Forest be opened and reviewed. She noted
that there are hurt feelings that more land wasn't allowed in
the Tongass National Forest for harvesting timber for the mills.
She characterized the intent language regarding the Tongass
National Forest as a fair insert.
8:41:26 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the intent was to add to the state forest
the land that was legislated last year. If so, she asked
whether that would be other state land or whether the intent is
to seek application to the federal government.
8:41:54 AM
MICHAEL ROVITO, Staff, Senator Linda Menard, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the intent language was to get more
of the Tongass National Forest land into state hands and make it
state land. He said he didn't know what the Division of
Forestry would have in mind for incorporation to the Southeast
State Forest. The broad intent, he specified, was to get more
of the Tongass National Forest land under the purview of the
state rather than under federal guidance.
SENATOR MENARD added that Alaska is a very wealthy state with
upwards of $16 billion, and therefore this [intent language]
merely notices that the state has the ability to purchase land
from the federal government. She clarified that it's not a
mandate, but rather awareness.
8:43:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out that the Deshka and Yetna
Rivers, major systems within the Mat-Su Valley, are failing
salmon streams. He asked if the Division of Habitat within the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game has testified in reference to
issues that may be created by logging operations around those
river systems.
MR. ROVITO replied no, but related his understanding that the
Forest Practices Act includes provisions to address those
streams that would fall within a state forest. He further
related that statute already specifies buffer zones that would
protect streams such that they aren't disturbed by activities
around the stream.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN maintained concern that there are
already failing systems located within this proposed forest.
Therefore, he stressed the need to address the issue, which he
suggested could perhaps be addressed by the House Resources
Standing Committee. Representative Austerman pointed out that
sometimes [the failing systems are the result of] the cumulative
effect of the rapid growth of the Mat-Su Valley on those
systems. Creating a state forest that allows commercial logging
in the same area [where there are failing systems] adds to the
cumulative effect.
8:45:12 AM
CHRIS MAISCH, Director/State Forester, Division of Forestry,
Department of Natural Resources, stated that the language about
public meetings and intent is located in Section 2. He noted
that through administrative order, the governor has appointed a
Jobs & Timbers Task Force to discuss this topic in Southeast
Alaska. The task force has been meeting around the state. All
of the meetings have been advertised and are open to the public.
Over the last seven months the task force has met all over
Southeast Alaska, including Coffman Cove and Ketchikan. One of
the recommendations from the task force to the governor is
contained in Section 2 of this legislation.
8:47:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA, drawing from her experience, opined that
the community that exists within this forest will be the example
for future forests with in-holdings. She related her
understanding that the intent language speaking to the Tongass
National Forest doesn't create anything without further action.
MR. MAISCH replied yes, and added that a lot of process would be
required prior to the intent being expressed into actions. For
instance, if the state were to reopen its Statehood Act and
reprioritize some of the remaining selections the state has to
receive, federal legislation would be required.
8:48:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked that it will take three years to
address [the issues that will arise] with a state forest with
in-holdings and fish to protect. She then pointed out that
having hearings in Ketchikan isn't the same as having hearings
in Prince of Wales. Representative Cissna then requested that
Mr. Maisch map out how all the various parts of the perfect
model [for a state forest] would be addressed.
MR. MAISCH, referring to Southeast Alaska, reiterated that the
task force did meet in Coffman Cove, which is located on Prince
of Wales Island. To date, the task force has only met six times
and there is a number that anyone can use to call into a
meeting. The concept, he related, was to rotate to as many
communities as possible in order to obtain as much input as
possible. The task force expires in July and is to provide a
final report to the governor regarding the task force's findings
and recommendations. With regard to the Susitna State Forest,
he directed attention to a map that shows how portions of the
Yetna and Deshka Rivers flow in and out of the proposed state
forest. Alaska's State Forest Practices Act, one of the
strongest in the nation, provides protection for fish habitat,
both for anadromous and high value resident fish, and water
quality. Site specific buffers are left at streams based on the
characteristics of the stream. He again directed attention to a
map, and pointed out the blue corridors that denote areas
previously set aside by the legislature as important for
riparian habitat and anadromous fish. There are quarter-mile
buffers on each side of the stream systems that were identified
as important anadromous fish habitat. Therefore, in addition to
Alaska's State Forest Practices Act there is an extra layer of
protection in place along these river systems. In terms of
other state forests that are already in place, the importance of
maintaining fish habitat is realized. In fact, salmon
production has increased during the time forest management
activities in Southeast, Southcentral, and the Interior have
been in place. He opined that the record speaks well for the
protections that exist. With regard to the in-holdings, Mr.
Maisch stated that [in determining the land for the proposed
state forest] the main concentrations of settlement lands were
avoided, although there are some in-holdings within the proposed
state forest. A similar situation existed in the Tanana Valley
State Forest where there were in-holdings on some of the rivers.
A citizen's advisory committee in which citizens are given a
chance to interact with the Division of Forestry regarding
management objectives and goals in the forest has been
successful. For the proposed state forest he envisioned
allocating a seat on the citizen's advisory committee to in-
holders, such as a homeowner's association as well as a group
concerned about access. The citizen's group approach has been
successful in the past for management of the other state
forests; and furthermore it tiers up to the Board of Forestry,
which has a similar organization.
8:54:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK recalled flying over areas of the proposed
state forest and seeing bands of timber along the rivers, but no
timber about 50 feet away from the river. Chair Dick opined
that he's having a difficult time picturing the area as a
forest.
MR. MAISCH informed the committee that the [Division of
Forestry] has performed a timber inventory with detailed mapping
of the different timber resources in the area. Therefore, the 9
million state-owned acres have been narrowed to the higher and
more productive lands that have been classified for forestry
use. In fact, these lands are already managed for forestry
purposes as they are classified as such by the area plan,
although they aren't currently designated as state forest lands.
These lands are actually very productive forest lands that
consist of mostly hard woods. Along the river systems tend to
be most of the conifer species. He noted that the inventories
of the land and the maps of the timber stands are available
online. In further response to Representative Dick, Mr. Maisch
agreed to show Representative Dick's staff the link.
8:57:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the in-holdings would expire
with the title holder's death or would they be inheritable or
transferrable.
MR. MAISCH answered that the in-holdings are private land and
will always be so; there is no intent by the state to acquire or
restrict the use of that private land. In fact, he opined that
over time the in-holdings will enhance the access where it's
desired [by the owners of the in-holdings]. The division works
with owners of the in-holdings to respect their wishes. In
further response to Representative Saddler, Mr. Maisch
reiterated that the state has no intent to acquire private land
or consolidate lands.
8:58:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER posed a scenario in which SB 159 passed
and there was an increase in timber harvest. In such a
situation, she inquired as to what proportion would be for
export in the form of round logs versus that used locally.
MR. MAISCH informed the committee that currently there is no
round log export out of Interior Alaska, including Southcentral
Alaska. He acknowledged that there have been round log exports
out of Interior Alaska in the past, but only during the very
best market conditions. The focus of the Division of Forestry
is on local manufacturing and high value-added manufacturing.
Most of the sale authority gives the division some advantages to
use sales mechanisms to use that type of use. One case has gone
to the Supreme Court regarding round log export [from which it
was made clear that] the state doesn't have the ability to
regulate interstate commerce. Although round log export off of
state lands can't be restricted, there are mechanisms in place
through the division's sale authorities and policies to ensure
those logs are available for domestic use and manufacture.
9:00:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to the interface of the
development impulse and the existence of the proposed state
forest.
MR. MAISCH clarified that once lands are legislatively
designated, there is no ability to dispose of the lands for
settlement within the state forest. The area planning process
for the area has identified settlement lands as part of the
process. Therefore, the state through the Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Mining, Land & Water and the area
planning process maps the zoning characteristics of different
state land in the Mat-Su Valley. One of the zoning items is
settlement lands, and therefore the better settlement lands have
already been identified in the planning process and made
available for that purpose. Once the state forest is
designated, those lands within the state forest are no longer
available for settlement. However, access isn't restricted and
[DNR] has a great track record in terms of allowing access for a
variety of development uses such as mining, oil and gas, and
other purposes.
9:01:55 AM
MR. MAISCH, in response to Representative Austerman,
acknowledged that an earlier version of the map didn't have the
blue corridors that signify the legislatively designated areas.
He then told the committee that there are even more detailed
maps that identify in-holdings in more detail and offered to
make that map available to the committee. He noted that all the
documents are available on-line.
9:04:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if SB 159 legislatively
designates the areas.
MR. MAISCH replied no, and added that the lands were identified
back in the 1990s prior to a Forest Practices Act for that
region of the state. After the Alaska Forest Practices Act, the
region [in the Mat-Su Valley] is region 2, Southeast Alaska is
region 1, and Interior Alaska is region 3. Those regions are
tailored to the types of forests and rivers in the region, and
therefore the act changes region-to-region. This legislation
doesn't impact those established corridors, he noted.
9:04:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN announced that he will be a "no
recommendation" on the legislation in terms of it moving from
committee.
9:05:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested access to the mining, land, and
water maps that show the settlement lands.
MR. MAISCH agreed to do so, noting that it's included in the
area plan.
9:05:44 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ pointed out that the supporting materials in the
committee packet specify that 2.1 million acres is currently
managed for forest and timber production in the Mat-Su Valley
area. She asked if the state forest designation limits the
timber activity to the 700,000-plus acres proposed in SB 159.
MR. MAISCH replied no, the Division of Forestry is still
responsible for managing the forest resources on all state lands
classified for forestry purposes.
9:06:35 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ inquired then as to the benefit of having a state
forest that prioritizes timber harvest versus lands that are
continuing to be harvested but aren't located in the state
forest.
MR. MAISCH stated that one of the most important advantages is
the permanence that the designation would provide. Once the
land is legislatively designated as a state forest, the state is
committed to manage the lands in perpetuity for sustained yield
of the timber resource. The aforementioned is very important
for the industry in terms of being able to plan and make long-
term investments. Another important advantage is investment in
infrastructure. He informed the committee that the Division of
Forestry budget includes discretionary funds for infrastructure,
reforestation, and road and bridge construction. Mr. Maisch
said that he would be willing to make those investments in land
designated as state forest land because that investment can be
retained for the future whereas investment in a classified land
that is general ownership could be lost in the future when the
area plan is updated and the classification is changed.
Therefore, it's important to have anchor forests close to
communities to provide easy access for timber and recreation.
9:08:21 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the existing rights-of-way have been
identified for the R.S. 2477s and will DNR continue to protect
the state's rights to those R.S. 2477s.
MR MAISCH answered yes, specifying that all the rights-of-way
for the R.S. 2477s have been identified through the Division of
Mining, Land, and Water. There will be no changes to those
rights-of-way and the intent is to protect them for future
access and development.
9:08:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to how fire management would
occur under a state forest designation.
MR. MAISCH responded that initially there would be no change to
the type of firefighting activity on these lands. He reminded
the committee that there is a statewide management plan that
identifies three levels of protection for lands in the state.
The plan is in place and active regardless of whether the land
is designated as a state forest or not. However, if these lands
are designated [as a state forest], over time there may be
higher levels of protection afforded places that have active
timber sales occurring or pending. In further response to
Representative Saddler, Mr. Maisch opined that although
initially [a state forest designation] wouldn't make any
difference, as access to these [proposed state forest] lands is
developed it would help the initial response to fires.
Furthermore, over time the management of the state forest land
will help manage high risk fuel types, especially those close to
communities. He informed the committee that the division would
go through the Community Wildfire Protection Plan process that
identifies human habitation and human improvements in relation
to high risk fuel types. The process includes activities in the
high risk fuel types to help reduce the risk and provide
additional protection to these communities.
9:10:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER maintained concern about the public
process for the proposed Susitna State Forest and the Tongass
National Forest. Therefore, she requested data that specified
the number of meetings held, mail out lists, and agendas in
order to be sure that those who are most directly impacted in
both regions had the opportunity to actively participate in the
discussion.
MR. MAISCH directed attention to the document entitled "Summary
of area plan and other agency public processes related to the
proposed Susitna State Forest [4/9/12]" that has been used to
date. The current process began in 2008. Mr. Maisch said there
has been an extensive public process during which hundreds of
people have attended the various public meetings in the Mat-Su
Valley. This is part of the area planning process, during which
the concept of having state forests has been discussed at all
the area planning process meetings as those lands are classified
for forestry use and because that's the first step. In further
response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Maisch agreed to provide
the committee with the meeting dates, locations, and agenda for
the task force for the Tongass National Forest. He noted that
all of the meetings were advertised through the meeting notice
process the state uses.
9:13:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed the need to ensure forests are
safeguarded in the face of the ever expanding human population.
She then surmised that Mr. Maisch is dealing with sustainability
and ensuring that the state has a resource that it can go to and
develop as a business in the future.
MR. MAISCH responded yes. He then related that one of the
biggest issues for his colleagues around the nation is
urbanization and parcelization of forest lands to smaller and
smaller parcels of property. The aforementioned is now a
problem north of Anchorage. Therefore, one of the key reasons
the Susitna State Forest has been proposed is to retain larger
blocks of land in public ownership that have a multiple use,
sustained yield mandate on how they will be managed. He
reminded the committee that a state forest classification is a
more general classification that allows many types of uses to
which Alaskans are accustomed. Another reason the Susitna State
Forest has been proposed is to help provide a sustainable yield
of timber for personal use, which would help address energy
issues and provide a raw material for the industry.
9:16:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to the difference consumers
would experience when cutting fire wood on state forest land as
opposed to its current classification and management scheme.
MR. MAISCH answered that there would be no change. The permit
that is required to harvest timber on general state land for
personal would still be required for state forest lands. The
only difference one might observe on state forest lands is that
the division might plow and grade roads on occasion because it
has a road maintenance budget for state forest land. Therefore,
people might enjoy better access to the personal use program in
a state forest versus general use state lands.
9:16:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to the type of transportation
facilities and roads that would be [in the proposed state
forest].
MR. MAISCH specified that would be part of the planning process.
He noted that there are some road systems that have already been
developed in the proposed state forest as part of the timber
management process. For example, the Zero Lake and Willard Cash
road systems have been developed and significantly upgraded over
time. The aforementioned is accomplished through the timber
sale program. Commercial purchases of timber are required to do
road maintenance as well as road and bridge construction as part
of the purchase of that timber. The division does the fair
market appraisal of those infrastructure investments and deducts
it from the appraisal of the timber. Therefore, it's one way in
which the state benefits from infrastructure development.
9:18:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to who compiled the document
entitled "Summary of area plan and other agency public processes
related to the proposed Susitna State Forest [4/9/12]."
MR. MAISCH said that his forest planner, Jim Schwarber, compiled
the document.
9:18:54 AM
BUCK LINDEKUGAL, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC),
began by stating that on behalf of SEACC members he voiced
surprise, disappointment, and dismay over the inclusion of
Section 2 in [CSSB 159(RES)]. Without warning and no effort to
inform impacted communities, Alaska Native tribes, or the
public, SB 159 was amended to call for substantial changes in
the ownership of the Tongass National Forest. Mr. Lindekugal
called on the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee to reject Section 2 of [CSSB 159(RES)] and insist on a
fair and full public discussion of this controversial provision
that would substantially change the ownership and management of
the Tongass National Forest. He emphasized that how the Tongass
National Forest is managed is very important to those living in
it and depending on its resources. Mr. Lindekugal indicated
that SEACC is working with a host of partners to build a
diverse, stable, and sustainable economy in the region. It's a
future that ensures the region's watersheds, community hunting
and fishing areas, important Native lands, etcetera are
protected for future generations. Therefore, SEACC requests
that the committee table this legislation or delete Section 2
from it.
9:21:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to when Section 2 was added.
CHAIR MUNOZ stated that Section 2 was added in the Senate
Resources Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that Mr.
Lindekugal is saying that the community process didn't occur in
Southeast. However, Section 2 merely urges the governor to
negotiate and doesn't really make it happen. She then asked the
sponsor whether Section 2 is a deal breaker. She also asked
whether amending the language of Section 2 would address SEACC's
concerns.
MR. LINDEKUGAL said he wouldn't equate the governor's task force
process in Southeast Alaska with a broad open public forum in
which all stakeholders have a say. He related that SEACC has
been around and involved with management of the Tongass National
Forest for 41 years and there are always issues. The
organization tries to be responsive to changing conditions and
needs, the forum for which is provided by the forest planning
process on the national level. In contrast, the task force
isn't as inclusive and seems to stick to the old timber first
paradigm from settler's days rather than looking forward to the
long-term needs of the region and the world in terms of having a
sustainable economy. Mr. Lindekugal acknowledged that Section 2
is intent language and doesn't substantively require the
governor to submit legislation to the legislature, it urges him
to do so. Although the legal effect of Section 2 isn't
immediate, when the legislature makes a statement people listen.
The SEACC doesn't believe that the statement regarding obtaining
more forest land from the Tongass National Forest for a timber
first priority is appropriate. He reminded the committee that
over the last two sessions, the Southeast state forest bill was
created and then expanded. Those in the area are still waiting
to see if the promises of state forest management on those lands
will prove up and be comparable to the opportunities on federal
lands.
9:28:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to Mr. Lindekugal's opinion
of Section 1 of [CSSB 159(RES)].
MR. LINDEKUGAL said SEACC doesn't have any objections to Section
1 regarding the creation of the Susitna State Forest. He then
directed attention to the letter from the Organized Village of
Kake dated April 11, 2012, which expresses concerns with state
management of their homeland because of the state's lack of
government-to-government relations with tribes in Alaska.
9:29:48 AM
EDDIE GRASSER, Lobbyist, Safari Club International (SCI) -
Alaska, stated that the sponsor should have a letter from SCI-
Alaska in support of this legislation. He recalled working for
Representative Larson in 1986 when the six rivers/recreational
rivers legislation was passed. Therefore, the river corridors
referenced by Mr. Maisch have been in existence for a long time.
The goal was to protect those waterways for fish as well as to
protect access for fishing. With regard to the concerns with
the public process, Mr. Grasser informed the committee that he
was born and raised in Palmer where he participated in many
public hearings on the Susitna area plan that he recalled began
in the early 1980s. Therefore, there have been extensive
hearings on this matter.
9:31:21 AM
SENATOR MENARD commented that the state is fortunate to have
someone of the caliber of Mr. Maisch involved with forestry.
She recalled that during the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting Southeast legislators expressed the desire to include
the Tongass National Forest intent language in the legislation,
which she felt was a fair submittal and provides awareness.
9:32:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to the Division of Forestry's
relationship with tribes.
SENATOR MENARD answered that she believes the tribes would be
one of the partners. However, she understood that in the
proposed Susitna State Forest area there are no tribal areas.
CHAIR MUNOZ clarified that Representative Cissna is speaking to
the government-to-government relations issue mentioned in the
letter from the Organized Village of Kake.
MR. MAISCH said that although he isn't an expert on the
government-to-government relationship aspect, for about 15 years
he worked for the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) in their
forestry program. The division, he explained, incorporates
tribal and Native corporation interests in the citizen's
advisory committee and the Board of Forestry, both of which have
a seat specifically designated for Native community
participation or Alaska Native corporations. The government-to-
government relationship is really an executive branch issue that
he wasn't sure how it was handled in Southeast Alaska. However,
he recalled that when the POGO mine was constructed in Fairbanks
there were government-to-government processes, which he recalled
were basically via a federal nexus rather than a state nexus.
9:35:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that in addition to the forest
practices and the habitat management of state forests there
should also be protection of logging, hunting, trapping, and
motorized access of the proposed Susitna State Forest. He
further expressed the need for appointments to the citizen's
advisory committee to take the aforementioned into consideration
and protect those uses.
MR. MAISCH noted that the legislation includes a specific
section that addresses traditional uses on state forest land.
In fact, [a provision in] the Haines State Forest [statute]
enumerates the aforementioned.
9:36:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER, returning to the concerns expressed with
regard to government-to-government relations and Southeast
Alaska, encouraged having people from Southeast be a part of the
solution.
9:36:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK requested information regarding what logging
operations are going on in the [proposed Susitna State Forest].
MR. MAISCH agreed to do so.
9:37:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that she's uncomfortable including
the Tongass National Forest since the committee doesn't have the
data for the public process. She remarked that she's not
confident that it has had as thorough a vetting by local
communities as occurred for the proposed Susitna State Forest.
9:37:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1, as follows:
Page 31, lines 20-31;
Delete Section 2
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected.
9:39:12 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna and Gardner
voted in favor of adopting Amendment 1. Representatives
Saddler, Foster, Dick, and Munoz voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-4.
9:39:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to report CSSB 159(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
9:40:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected to moving CSSB 159(RES) today
because she wanted to review the data that has been requested.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said that she supported moving CSSB
159(RES) forward as it would ensure that the area isn't lost to
subdivisions.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER related support for the motion with the
caveat that the House Resources Standing Committee addresses
Representative Gardner's concerns.
9:42:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER withdrew her objection, noting that she
is a member of the House Resources Standing Committee, the next
committee of referral.
9:42:35 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced the intent to obtain and provide the
information to the House Resources Standing Committee.
9:42:53 AM
There being no further objection, CSSB 159(RES) was reported
from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee.
9:43:18 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:43 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB159 (H)CRA Haines State Forest Management Plan Access.pdf |
HCRA 4/12/2012 8:30:00 AM |
SB 159 |
| SB159 (H)CRATanana Valley State Forest Management Plan Access.pdf |
HCRA 4/12/2012 8:30:00 AM |
SB 159 |
| SB159(H) CRA Committee Qustions Susitna State Forest (2).pdf |
HCRA 4/12/2012 8:30:00 AM |
SB 159 |